Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Breezeep

Transgender teen commits suicide, cites Christian parents in blog

Recommended Posts

I'll be the guy to say it. Funny how your attitude changes when tragedy strikes at home.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

I don't see many "stone hail accidents" in the newspaper. I'm mixing wool and linen right now, look at my unspeakable heresy. And it's against LORD GOD's law for women to wear men's clothing, yet I don't see even the most religious bigots disowning their daughters for wearing pants.


Maybe in Lancaster's (the Amish county) local papers...

Share this post


Link to post

I just love how much Christian conservatives are ingrained into the Old Testament mindset and that they treat Jesus as a personal savior, not a collective one. Jesus gave his live to cleanse everyone of their sins, not just you because you read a little bit of the Bible and go to church and only use private religious institutions. Just the whole fundamentalist mindset is a hypocrisy.
Also, if I were to follow the Bible, I'd do so in a chronological manner. Anything before that gets contradicted later on will be ignored by me.

As for this situation, it sucks terribly and I cannot feel anything other than hate (oh hey I contradicted Jesus' teachings there) for her parents. I've made quite a few transgendered friends over this year, and they go through just about the same problems; self-loathing, unsupportive (or even hated by their own) families, and of course, having their own status used as a joke or even a weapon against them. I can't help but feel bad for them, and I especially would hate to see them commit suicide like Leelah did. Her suicide adds to the concern for my aforementioned friends, and it adds to my hate for how society treats them.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Maybe in Lancaster's (the Amish county) local papers...

And lo! The harlot of the tribe of Stevenson hath been slain in a hail of stones for her promiscuous ways. All praise LORD GOD.

In other news: Farmer Richardson's barn put to flame after he was found wearing a woolen vest over a linen shirt. Halelujah!

Share this post


Link to post
minigunner said:

Also, if I were to follow the Bible, I'd do so in a chronological manner. Anything before that gets contradicted later on will be ignored by me.

If you were to read the Bible for guidance, as a Christian, ignore the OT, read only the NT.

Most of the OT is utterly pointless bullshit. The kind of useless trivia about long-dead people from long-dead countries, perfectly parodied by the Monty Pythons:

And spotteth twice they the camels before the third hour. And so the Midianites went forth to Ram Gilead in Kadesh Bilgemath by Shor Ethra Regalion, to the house of Gash-Bil-Betheul-Bazda, he who brought the butter dish to Balshazar and the tent peg to the house of Rashomon, and there slew they the goats, yea, and placed they the bits in little pots. Here endeth the lesson.


The NT is about the Good News that Christ brought; the OT is a hodgepodge mix of (biased, inaccurate) history records, (outdated, stupid) legislation, and some (inconsistent, self-contradicting) theology. It is of no value for the modern world; merely an object of curiosity for scholars and historians who can use it and a big grain of salt to get some insight into the context of the NT -- just like the Apocrypha.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree. The OT is about as relevant as any other ancient Mesopotamian folklore. I think the only reason it was included in the Bible was simply for the sake of having more doctrine. The NT is actually pretty short. Jesus was only teaching for a couple of years and any other surviving documents quickly contradict any chronology made by the books present.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

And it's against LORD GOD's law for women to wear men's clothing, yet I don't see even the most religious bigots disowning their daughters for wearing pants.

Because it's grown on society and it isn't as appalling to them as, say, girls wearing skimpy clothing, or homosexuality. Ideas like that personally disgust them (or they're taught to be disgusted by them) and, lo and behold, they're condemned in the OT, so they use that as a backing to their beliefs. I'm sure there are incredibly back-asswards areas in the US that still forbid women from wearing pants though.

Share this post


Link to post

There actually are some minor denominations of Christianity out there that do take a firm stance on issues like what clothes women are allowed to wear and whatnot. There's one in particular that stands out, it's right on the tip of my tongue, can't remember what it's called though, but you can tell because women of this denomination tend to dress like they're living in pioneer days - plain, simple. old-fashioned dress, hair up in a bun, etc. Not quite to Amish levels or anything, but definitely noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

There actually are some minor denominations of Christianity out there that do take a firm stance on issues like what clothes women are allowed to wear and whatnot. There's one in particular that stands out, it's right on the tip of my tongue, can't remember what it's called though, but you can tell because women of this denomination tend to dress like they're living in pioneer days - plain, simple. old-fashioned dress, hair up in a bun, etc. Not quite to Amish levels or anything, but definitely noticeable.


Mennonite if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
minigunner said:

Because it's grown on society and it isn't as appalling to them as, say, girls wearing skimpy clothing, or homosexuality. Ideas like that personally disgust them

That reminds me of the school my mother taught at. There was a priest who recently moved to the area and his 2 daughters where going to attend there.

So the priest went there beforehand and literally told the principle that his daughters were not to be taught about homosexuality because it was evil and would anger god if his daughters were taught there was nothing wrong about it. He also told him that if his daughters misbehaved that the teacher needed to remind them to think if god would be happy with what they've done.

My mother really pissed of the priest once when she purposely taught them and the whole class about the theory of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

You have to pick one or the other, you can't follow both.

dew said:

It's pretty damn obvious that going hardline with the Bible thumping is only useful and practiced when it forwards someone's current political agenda, so I call bullshit on your "put up or shut up".


Well, that's precisely the point. When you ask a christian about his/her beliefs, what do they answer? "I believe in the Bible (i.e., the word of God)". Not "I believe in the Old Testament", or "I believe in Leviticus, because Kings II or Ruth are wrong"". No, it's the Bible as a whole. It's THE Holy Book. You don't agree with that? Fine, don't be a christian. It's just not for you. I mean, the Bible is absolute because it's dogmatic. You can say "oh, this is obsolete/stupid, I don't agree with it", but the Bible doesn't let you choose. You do not have that option.

The distinction between the various christian denominations come precisely from different interpretations from the Bible, because apparently God didn't feel like making it clear from the start. But again, the Bible orders you to follow God's orders (because, after all, it's HIS word). Just keep in mind nowhere in the Bible it says the word of God is subject to interpretation.

I'm atheist in part because of that. You cannot follow the Bible. It's impossible, it's full of contradictions, stupidity, misoginy, etc. Several good ideas, unfortunately contaminated by loads and loads of nonsense. It's a collection of books writen over a long period of time, it's a series of books meant for different civilizations/cultures over a period of more than a thousand years, put together by a commitee of priests/kings/etc., who just wanted to include what was best for them in the first place. If you base your arguments in the Bible, there's just no way to answer them. You have already won by not letting the criticism come in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

The whole concept of picking and choosing flies in the face of Christianity anyway. It's why so-called "Christian liberals" are an oxymoron.

Liberalism is, by definition, a liberal interpretation of things, and has the root word liber, Latin for "free." It's meant to be progressive, always moving forward towards liberty for everyone.

Christianity basically disputes that at its core: "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deut. 12:32

And that means everything. Any Christian who proclaims to support gay rights or anything else is by definition not Christian.

It's easy to claim that anti-LGBT/women Christians ignore Christ's teachings in order to push their own agenda, similar to how so-called liberal Christians (claim to) ignore the hateful shit to preach a message of love, but their own religion is contradictory.

Yeah, Christ's message was one of love and inclusiveness. But the rest of the Bible's message is absolutely the foundation for homophobia and sexism and everything else. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is absolutely relevant here, because that is central to the entire philosophy of Christianity -- and that's why so many people outside Christianity hate it so much. The sad truth is, regressive Christians are adhering closer to their own religion's tenets than "liberal" Christians.

Liberal Christians, if they're going to put their money where their mouth is, should reject Christianity altogether because it is antithetical to a liberal philosophy, and they can't use "interpretation" to get around it because interpretation literally goes against what the Bible itself teaches:

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20

Interpretation is essentially mental calisthenics, doublespeak and hypocrisy, because that's the only way Christianity and its adherents can actually function in society. Whole swaths of the Bible depict things you're supposed to do that are blatantly illegal, which is why "interpretation" is popular, because you have to outright ignore entire parts of the Bible in order to not get fucking arrested -- in counter to what the Bible itself says.

Yeah that's right, I just discredited 2000 years of religious scholarship with two clobber verses.

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno, I mean, I still look at it as that the Bible is so full of plot holes (to use a grossly inappropriate term for what is supposedly a true story) and contradictions, that I kinda feel anyone should be free to pick and choose. No one can follow everything, which granted, is part of the reason I'm an atheist in the first place, but honestly, I feel if you admit that fact, then you should be absolutely free to pick and choose. And after all, since from my perspective none of it is true anyway, I really see no harm in cherry-picking the stories that actually have meaning and importance to you and leaving everything else out. My only real gripe is I wish more Christians would recognize that fact, and quit trying to pretend that they're following every rule laid down in the Bible to the letter. Maybe it doesn't make them Christians, but hey, if anyone who doesn't follow the whole Bible to the letter is not a Christian, then there's no such thing as a Christian. And again, if you're going to follow a broken religion like that, you might as well pick and choose, because what's the harm in picking and choosing if the religion itself is fundamentally broken?

After all, it only really matters if Christianity really is the one true religion, and following every tenet of it is necessary for salvation. But, the Bible is so fundamentally screwed up, I'd imagine that if Christianity really were the one true religion, God would probably give a free pass to anyone who just tried to follow it and tried to be a good person, regardless if they didn't follow every tiny little thing in it. And if following every damn little thing in the Bible is necessary for salvation, well who gives a crap because no one's getting into heaven anyway, so you might as well just do whatever the hell you want. Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that I just can't see a good reason for following a strict interpretation of the Bible. Either it's made up and there is no heaven/hell, God's gonna give everyone a pass who at least tried, or you're going to hell no matter how hard you try because it's impossible to get every little thing right. There really is no plus side to accepting a strict interpretation of the Bible that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with what you said, but why don't just save a step?

Why follow the Bible because it says some good things? You want to choose what to follow? Why don't you choose to be a good person in the first place? Treat others well, love your family, your friends, support them. You don't need a book for that, just some common sense. Life is great because we can choose to be good people. And being with good people is awesome.

Share this post


Link to post

That's my point. The Bible ITSELF says you cannot pick and choose, you gotta follow it all, no matter how self-contradictory it all is.

And that Peter quote that says as much is in the New Testament, so you can't even pretend that it doesn't count like most people do with Old Testament verses they don't like.

Christians tend to struggle with this.

Share this post


Link to post

That comic comes close to having a point, but misses it.

The OT being God's covenant with Israel means that even if it's still valid, it only applies to Hebrews. If you're a Gentile, it does not concern you.

Share this post


Link to post

How is it even like to live in USA with all those stupid and/or fanatical people over there? Do you fear going out and prefer to stay at home?

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

That comic comes close to having a point, but misses it.

The OT being God's covenant with Israel means that even if it's still valid, it only applies to Hebrews. If you're a Gentile, it does not concern you.


It has a point, and you're the one who just missed it. If the Old Testament only applies to Hebrews (i.e. the Jews -- and that's why we have the Torah) then why is it in the Christian Bible? It's an important question, because it's on its surface a completely extraneous part of what's supposed to be the Christian Holy Book and just chock-full of contradictions on top of the ones in the NT (and they contradict each other!) But that's the problem, isn't it? By including the OT in the Bible, it's part of the Bible, and ignoring it (except the part that says gay people are icky, usually) requires a ton of flimsy justifications because the New Testament explicitly says the entire Bible is God's Word and needs to be heeded in full:

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

Combine this with the line proscribing interpretation and it's pretty clear that the entire Bible is meant to be taken at face value in spite of its contradictions and in spite of the Old Testament supposedly no longer applying.

Share this post


Link to post

Except it's true - if you're a Gentile, Jewish law doesn't apply to you. I realize this gets even more into the Bible contradicting itself, but it does establish in the New Testament that Gentiles can be Christian. And by definition, Gentiles are not bound by Jewish law - otherwise, Gentiles would have had to convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity. In fact, the whole "Gentiles can be Christian" thing is the whole basis for saying that the Old Testament does not apply to Christians.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I just sat through a Christian's funeral for our 16 year old that I lost. Didn't make one bit of sense, but whatever. They tried to personalize it to her, especially since one of the the two priests performing the ceremony was her Christian school teacher. Even had photos of her confirmation with him in the photo as her teacher.

They even brought up the whole does god exist to take someone so young? Then they spun it into it is because he exists that she's not dead. Jesus defeated death in some sort of ultimate boxing match *my joke not his* But the priest / pastor did say that Jesus defeated Death. Therefore there is no Death.

I was a pall bearer and I've been a pall bearer for the elders of our family, but with this one... I felt like we should be taking her away from the ground. Like no guys, she's in there. I know she's not alive, but she's in there we should be preventing her from going in the ground like I would keep any other kid away from danger.

I'd rather hear about her than listen to some nonsense about her and god. It felt insulting, even if she went to Christian school the past 4 years. I never heard her talk about god like her two littlest sisters did.

Maybe 4 years ago I remember being at a funeral for my mother's 95 year old aunt that had Alzheimer for 20 years and her family that stuck with her those 20 years even if she remembered none of them. That priest ran down the family and said they all forgot about her, but Jesus and god didn't. What the fuck? The fuck they did you ignorant priest. Ah oh well. Maybe the Christian funeral system is designed to ease pain by insulting us. To distract us from the final moments someone is above ground.

It was interesting watching the second priest yesterday during his part of the ceremony. I genuinely like the guy and he seems like a pretty nice guy in general without being over the top. Never fits Jesus into normal conversations, nor god. Then his speech was just uncaring and cold. He suddenly felt soulless shill.

As we sat there for an hour, I started evaluating, basing a religion around one man that died for my sins 2,000 years before I was ever born. A sacrifice. If I could make that sacrifice too, I'd do it. Heck there used to be other religions built on sacrifice. Maybe having Jesus do one sacrifice for the rest of all mankind, it keeps other people from saying I sacrifice myself for you. I die, so that you can live in sin. Then we can all go living our normal sinful lives with no extra death. Even if death doesn't exist.

My cousin in Texas has had his newborn the past 3 months. The church people leave him knitted stuff and all sorts of food, even though he's very well off and doesn't need anything. They're trying to bait him to their church. I told him they'll stop coming when you come to church. Its like a cult, but its Christian. Just a bunch of nice normal people that boost the spirit of the community. They feel good by giving and that makes everyone else feel good.

Share this post


Link to post
dethtoll said:

Combine this with the line proscribing interpretation and it's pretty clear that the entire Bible is meant to be taken at face value in spite of its contradictions and in spite of the Old Testament supposedly no longer applying.

And taking it at face value is exactly how you get to "if you're not a Jew, you don't have to care about the OT" because it's not an interpretation that the OT is the law of God for the Jews.

North Koreans must have a portrait of their Dear Leader in their home. Presumably you are not a North Korean, so do you feel bound by that law? Do you believe you legally need to have the smiling face of Kim Jung Un watching over your daily life?

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, here we go, I've actually found something definitive on the issue of Gentiles and the Old Testament.

Acts 15:28-29 (NIV)
"28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."

So it would seem to me that this is specifically stating that most of the Old Testament doesn't really count, at least for Gentiles. For context, Acts 15 on the whole is a discussion the issue of whether or not the Gentiles had to follow the Old Testament. Acts 15:28-29 is the conclusion of that discussion.

Again, I'm an atheist, so none of it really applies to me, but this to me is a pretty clear statement that parts of the Old Testament don't apply to Christians. So the Bible itself is telling people to pick and choose, even if earlier parts of it specifically stated that you can't pick and choose. Which just gets into my point that the notion of adhering to everything is absurd, and no one should be expected to, because again, parts of the Bible contradict other parts, and so literally no one can adhere to everything, and thus, with that requirement, Christianity would be meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing that the Bible is written by various authors over a long span of time, it's not like they all got together to make sure their stuff matched up. A lot of authors also deal with their own opinions. A lot of it, the NT anyways, is probably there for Perspective, as opposed to every little bit being taken literally.

The OT had better action sequences, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Clonehunter said:

The OT had better action sequences, however.

The last part of NT is all about epic action, but it gets a little too anime.

Share this post


Link to post

I got up to Exodus in the Old Testament. It wasn't a bad read actually. But I eventually lost interest in finishing the Bible (Catholic Version). Though, I have placed it on my bucket list.

EDIT:

Question:

If Jesus Christ is himself a Jew, does he not have to obey the laws of the Old Testament? Thus, accepting the homophobic tenant within it?

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is why we need explicit warnings on satire nowadays. As an old man of the old world, back in my day we learned in catechism the Bible was all metaphors and parables. Not like we needed to be told. Any ten years old is smart enough to see taking literally stories of multiplied fishes and cured paraplegics doesn't make sense in a world with starving African kids and diseases and hospitals.

Share this post


Link to post

The division between Gentiles and Jews was supposed to have been eradicated, uniting God's chosen people with his other children, thus creating a new, saved humanity, making all people worthy.

Ephesians 2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Are Christians bound to the laws of Israel? Here's some excerpts:

Hebrews 8:13
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

dethtoll said:

It has a point, and you're the one who just missed it. If the Old Testament only applies to Hebrews (i.e. the Jews -- and that's why we have the Torah) then why is it in the Christian Bible? It's an important question, because it's on its surface a completely extraneous part of what's supposed to be the Christian Holy Book and just chock-full of contradictions on top of the ones in the NT (and they contradict each other!) But that's the problem, isn't it? By including the OT in the Bible, it's part of the Bible, and ignoring it (except the part that says gay people are icky, usually) requires a ton of flimsy justifications because the New Testament explicitly says the entire Bible is God's Word and needs to be heeded in full:

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

Combine this with the line proscribing interpretation and it's pretty clear that the entire Bible is meant to be taken at face value in spite of its contradictions and in spite of the Old Testament supposedly no longer applying.

Except those commandments and laws are not referring to the ones found in the OT. If you have read Matthew further:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus can choose what laws to carry over to his new covenant.

Hebrews 8:6
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenants of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

This thread is why we need explicit warnings on satire nowadays. As an old man of the old world, back in my day we learned in catechism the Bible was all metaphors and parables. Not like we needed to be told. Any ten years old is smart enough to see taking literally stories of multiplied fishes and cured paraplegics doesn't make sense in a world with starving African kids and diseases and hospitals.


The problem is, there are people in the world that believe in Biblical literalism.

3 in 10 Americans take the bible seriously, word for word.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Share this post


Link to post

And here we are, quoting verses from the Bible trying to make sense out of something which obviously makes no sense: someone died (at least in part) because his/her parents didn't wanted to accept what he/she was based on their christian beliefs/principles. That's wrong, what that people did is wrong, and is wrong trying to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×